Tom

Much of what you write here is admirable. I know that I will make myself unpopular by saying this, but many of the points you want to make are lost because you have not written clearly and carefully, but hastily as though gesture is more important than content. I am going to assume that I know what you mean - but I cannot be sure that I am right. 

Your first question - how do we (as theatres) grow? - is important, but I remember it being asked when I was a child, again when I was a teenager; I began to ask it early in my career, continued to ask it through my thirties and forties, and now I want to see answers, not the question. I have written some of my answers to that question elsewhere, in my own blog, and do not intend to repeat them here. I will, however, offer some additional thoughts.

Firstly, ours is not a wonderful industry. It is sheer hell. It is demanding at every point - the stress levels reached in order to achieve the slightest thing are so high as to be, in some cases, medically dangerous. People burn-out at a shattering rate, and few come through a project satisfied that they have received an adequate return on all that they have put in. The politics is vile, and the contempt that even very experienced and highly qualified practitioners have to suffer at the hands of event management and public relations is inexcusable. The very wise get out of the industry altogether, but remain in theatre as a hobby - where they have more control over the stress and the indignities they may suffer.

Our industry is not wonderful, but it deals in wonders, and that is the reason that it continues to survive - even if its current survival may seem to be tenuous at some points. No one would claim that the blockbuster musical is a questionable survival, but the small naturalistic play, the post-dramatic event and the narrative works that I specialise in all suffer continual threat of extinction (and this list is not exhaustive). They are not extinguished yet, however, because they deal in wonders - even if only to some.

The hard part is in building the quantity of the 'some;' I have also addressed this elsewhere.

Your opening sentence was "Today we face the problem of growing with our audience." I have assumed that you meant that "today we face the problem of growing our audience" rather than "today we face the problem of matching our maturity with that shown by our audiences," or 'today we face the problem of growing culturally to remain ahead of the expectations of our audiences." These are not facetious distinctions, but go to the heart of almost all my contributions here to date.

As many people on this board know, I have been forced to retire from active life because of neurological problems. Rather than do nothing, I invested a great deal of money and time into trying to find ways of making an on-line presence for my own theatre work. I have so far proven that I can make the sound recordings, develop the corporate personality into a creative presence and construct a meaningful apologetic for the work as a whole. I have failed to demonstrate that a market is attainable.

It appears now that I may have a tumour in the base of my spine. If this is so, then there is a strong chance that it can be removed and that, after some rehabilitation, I will be able to return to a normal stage life. The the need for an on-line presence will, accordingly, evaporate.

It is exactly in this area of the on-line presence that your entry is most interesting and most challenging. Although I have found MySpace a handy laboratory for marketing tests, Facebook has been utterly useless to me. Others with whom I have discussed this have expressed the same view. I have not even bothered with Twitter - I, frankly, see no point in it.

I would be interested to see you develop your ideas concerning these networking sites in subsequent posts. This is assuming that I have understood your opening correctly.

I would be grateful for a series of clear illustrations of how Facebook and Twitter (in particular) can be useful. If there is a body of people - of whatever age - that comprise a sector of our market but that we fail to reach because of our media incompetence, then this is a serious issue. I would judge that it is equally important to amateur companies as to the independent industry.

In the event that I have misunderstood you, then please take the opportunity to clarify your ideas, particularly with reference to their role in the development of an on-line presence, and especially in regard to the networking resources that you have identified as important.

Thanks

Noël Christian

homestead:Theatre of Words

http://www.facebook.com/pages/homestead-Theatre-of-Words/195922452014?ref=ts

http://www.myspace.com/homesteadtheatre

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListA

...influences interpretation of a post. I took the issue of online presence in Tom's post to be a minor sideline stemming from what his post was actually about - Community Theatre companies producing more work where 'youth' (not entirely sure who we are taking about though - high school, post high school?) can participate.

That in itself is interesting to me I guess because my perception is that there is no issue whatsoever in terms of opportunity for youth in community theatre in Perth. In fact (and here's where my sphere of interest starts to influence my interpretation), there is much less opportunity for those of us not-so-young to play in theatre than there is for the youngin's.

Tom, you did mention 'kids', so maybe you are talking an absence of opportunity for High School Kids and younger?

If that is the case, I would have to disagree with you in terms of community theatre needing to have a mandate/priority to immerse children in theatre. Firstly because I believe that there is already an abundance of opportunity of opportunities for 'youth' in community theatre. In fact, the very young mean age of those involved tends to result in Directors having to go with actors much younger than 'ideal' when casting. In musicals, where there is a large ensemble/chorus requirement, you will find that the majority of cast will be under 25 and there will almost certainly be many high school students amongst them.

Additionally, we have a company dedicated to youth musical theatre, that only produces work with 16-30 year olds. There are also a large number of service providers dealing exclusively/primarily in providing theatre training to school aged children. There is very little in comparison available to the over 25s, or even the 18-25s for that matter.

Secondly I think the commitment, scheduling and standard of work produced must be considered. Community theatre attempts to emulate the process of professional theatre, within the realities of it being a voluntary unpaid pursuit. This means long hours of rehearsal, a large amount of preparation needed to be done by actors outside rehearsal, many many hours of hard work for crew and then a season which could be anything from 5-15 performances in a short space of time.

This sort of scheduling and the commitment and work needed to be done is an enormous load for a school aged child to take on. And as in professional theatre, must be managed very very carefully and utilised sparingly. Until they're finished school, a child's focus should and must be on education. And the enormous burden placed on parents with a child in a production must be considered also.

All that said though, I think the demographic most catered for in community theatre at present is absolutely 'youth'. They make up the vast majority of our audiences and our casts. I am really surprised that you would even see there was an 'issue'.

Maybe you could say a bit more about why it is you think there is an issue, what that issue is and most importantly, provide a definition of the age group you are referring to?

When they get a driving licence, don't they consider themselves as ataining adulthood?

Being one not young enough to 'Know everything'.

When I was a Rover Scout Advisor & later a Scouting District Commissioner in another previous life!

I found especial with the Venturer & Rover Squire members they assumed the mantle of being truely grown up, when they started flashing around thier new drivers licence.

Of course the BSA regard Rovers [17 - 26] as being part of the youth section.

Subsiquently applying a policy of 'Gang Show' performers being only from the Youth section. This to me is rather strange having grown up in the Pohmy Gang Shows where older age was not a limit, only membership in the movement was required to trod the Gangster boards. But that's another story!

and unfortunately it showed.
The crux of it was more that we need to continue to involve this demographic in order to keep theatre relevant and to ensure future involvement.
I did not really draft this more wrote as I went but thank you for all the feedback. next time I will make sure it's more easily clarified.
Noël Christian thanks to you in particular. your advice is sound and you have also given me a topic that I can develop each week into a blog entry. Hopefully I can improve my writing somewhat in the space of time between this and the next blog.